Slashdot Mirror
It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant
ozric99 sent in a great bit over at BBC news where Ridley Scott reveals that Deckard was a replicant. This is of course the question on the mind of any fan of the classic Blade Runner film. I used to have this discussion with friends years ago. Great film: if you haven't seen it, spank yourself and go rent the directors cut (or get the DVD, it's beautiful).
That's a hell of a spin. Deckard dreams of unicorns as a push toward immortality and Gaff does something similar with the origami. Coincidence? I doubt it (I've always thought Deckard was a replicant but that's because I saw the director's cut first), but yours is the best plausible denial I've seen so far.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
I think after reading all of the sides here on /. (and this is easily my most-participated in discussion, hands down), I'm going to have to agree with you. The charm of the movie really hinged on the question, so while I've always assumed that he was a replicant (that's how I interpret the unicorn sequence) I'm going to have to keep a questionmark at the end of my statment.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
The same is true for a film. The director may tell you what impression he wanted the viewer to get, or what was in his mind when he directed it. The actors can tell you what emotions or reactions they wanted to stimulate. But the experience stands on its own two feet.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I agree that this was a great mystery and solving it ruins a whole topic of conversation. But at least I now know I was right...
Elric42 "And when you look into and abyss, the abyss also looks into you." -Nietzsche
I believe that Arnie's decompression and the rapid pressurization of Mars were supposed to be "real," which is exactly what made the movie such a piece of shit. It entirely blew my ability to believe in those last moments of the film, when it had been mildly entertaining before then.
Nominations for other movies with horrendous endings:
The Abyss;
Titan A.E;
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
The Black Hole;
The Deer Hunter.
Only The Deer Hunter was saved from being complete shit, and that only because of the otherwise brilliant direction of Michael Cimino.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
And the movie is just one interpretation of his book...
Adam
Perhaps this is true, I dunno cuz I've not seen the DVD. What I can say is these cases of people actually observing the "compression artifacts" are cases of super-human perception, a result of prolonged exposure to Quake at 60+fps.
cat
Surely you'd say you intended it to represent a sailboat - few artists would be arrogant enough to say 'This represents a sailboat', and the idea of an emperor's new clothes type situation where an artist says 'Can't you see this represents life itself, sitting in a teacup?' is a cliche, and intended to amuse!
Blade Runner Special Edition Info
>>
Connie Chung: So tell me, is he really a replicant?
Scott: That's a secret. Watch the movie and tell me what you think.
Connie Chung: Comon, why don't you just whisper in my ear what the truth really is.
Scott: He's a replicant.
>>
Ah hah! So, now you know! That bastard connie conived him out of the information! **sob**
Perhaps this is true, I dunno cuz I've not seen the DVD. What I can say is these cases of people actually observing the "compression artifacts" are cases of super-human perception, a result of prolonged exposure to Quake at 60+fps.
I don't know... there are plenty of DVDs which have artifacts... It's damn annoying but still better than fuzzy VHS tapes or laserdiscs which have to flip in the middle of a movie. I can say that I have definitely noticed artifacts in Bladerunner, and in most movies that have lots of big, black areas... The shadows just aren't right. It doesn't really hamper the viewing to much, though.
Josh Sisk
What is really surprising is that the two sequels written by [checking book case] K. W. Jeeter are also really good! They're named "Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Humanity" and "Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night" (presumably in order to leverage the Movie title in marketing), but they really are "DADoES?" 2 and 3 (As opposed to a cheap ripoff-merchendaise scam following the "director's cut" re-release).
Jeeter has done an incredible job writing the books, and manages to build on the original in a way that strengthens both it and the sequels.
I really had my doubts about those two books, but I after reading them, I have no reservations recommending them to anyone that liked the original! Oh, and don't bother visiting my homepage, it's one of those places that never really gets started. At least for now.
Your logic is truly dizzying.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
That's just one point of view. And like I said before, people who believe that are fools.
Art means no more - and no less - than the artist intends. The measure of an artist's worth is how well he can communicate his intention.
He already said that in his mind, Deckard was a replicant. The movie itself was ambiguous, but less so in the director's cut.
--
Marc A. Lepage (aka SEGV)
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
Not sure how anything is official though, since Philip K. Dick, the only real author of the story and the only one who could make such a claim, is dead.
I guess this sort of cruft explains why Philip wouldn't let them make the movie. What a damn shame.
How do we know that Deckard actually has been around this long?
Deckard is pulled out of retirement. Perhaps this is part of the standard startup procedure for new replicants?
Holden is also a blade runner. If all blade runners are replicants, then probably Deckard has been brought online to replace Holden.
Another idea to muddy the waters:
We don't know how the implant technology works. Are replicant memories copied or synthesized? If they are synthesized, then Deckard must be a replicant.
But if they are copies, then knowledge of a person's memory does not necessarily mean they are a replicant.
Deckard knows Tyrell's niece's memories, but Tyrell's niece is presumably not a replicant.
And finally..
I thought the 5 or 6 replicant theory was explained in the FAQ? It's just a continuity error.
Deckard buys a bottle of booze, then fights Leon boozeless, and then drinks the booze at home. Maybe he dropped it in the fight & picked it up later?
In any case, I subscribe to the theory that the question is more important than the answer. Am I human? What is human? Am I any different than the replicants that I kill?
Am I the only one who liked the original cut of Blade Runner better? I found the Directors Cut hard to follow and I really appreciated the expository voice overs in the original theatrical release. You don't find good voice over like that anymore. Granted the studio's happy ending was a lot weaker than the directors cut, but I still prefer the original version of the movie in the end. It sucks because all you can buy is the directors cut these days.
Dunno, I have been slowly losing respect for Ridley Scott. Gladiator's ending was just sooo contrived. I guess everyone's entitled to some mistakes.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
From the article:
"Another hint in the film comes from the number of replicants
which Deckard is hunting. We find out that six had made their
way to earth, one of whom was killed. Deckard is looking for
four, begging the question: "Who is the fifth replicant?".
The problem with this speculation is that the escaped replicants
had a built in "expiration date" with Roy Batty being the only
one of the escapees that lived to full term (so to speak).
For Deckard to have been one of the six, would he not have died
around the same time as Batty? At least he would be feeling the
symptoms of system breakdown similar to Priss, Roy, Leon...
Deckard was on earth for years before the other replicants show
up. This is established early in the film by him having to be
talked back out of retirement in order to take this case.
Replicants also develop real memories of thier own on top of
whatever implanted memories they were given. All the other
replicants (except for Rachel) had the awareness that they
were indeed artificial. And since they escaped together, they
had come to rely on each other for continued survival. Even
if Deckard might not have remembered them, they most certainly
would recognize him. And in Roy's final speech he clearly
identified Deckard as a human.
While I am not going to enter the greater debate on whether or
not Deckard might still be a replicant from somwhere else...
All told, making Deckard a replicant opens more questions than
it answers.
Where and how was he made? Especially without the apparent knowledge
of Dr. Tyrell; who seems to be the only person with enough clout to
pull off creating a free roaming replicant (like Rachel).
Why has he lived so long? Assuming that he was not another Tyrell
experiment, then he would have died of old age long before the others
arrived.
What the ----? OK, one of the major underlying themes of BladeRunner
(at least for me) was the question of what defines a human, and whether
a "human" like Deckard could fall in love with a replicant (like Rachel).
Changing Deckard to a replicant sort of blows the whole meaning of the
film in that regard, and pretty much makes the humans into the bad guys
overall. (I don't have a problem if that was the real meaning, but
I'd have preferred to not wait this long to find out).
Nominations for other movies with horrendous endings:
Titan A.E;
I'm sorry, this movie was horrible from start to finish.
Josh Sisk
Wow, I would have liked it better if Scott left it as a mystery, but hey, whatever floats your boat. It's cool to know now, I guess. Sharkey
www.badassmofo.com
Newly redesigned, high in fiber, low in cholesterol.
If you haven't read the book, spank yourself, read the book and THEN go see the movie. The true aspects of the story only come through in the written version.
Yeah, I can agree. I saw no artifacts in the DVD. Not one. Altho it could definetly be beefed up a bit since it is DVD and all...
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
..as far as storytelling was concerned. For visuals it was great.
Makes it difficult to find an original copy around.
sine puella vita suget
The original DVD has a lot of compression artifacts and other issues that plagued a lot of early DVDs. I've heard more than just rumor that there is another transfer in the work that will be far superious, but I don't know when/where.
If you really want to see it and are looking for image quality, get the laserdisc.
-buff
One thing that kept me skeptical about the whole thing was that I heard that the unicorn dream scene was taken from another movie (Legend, I think, which Scott also directed). This to me says that it really wasn't part of the original thinking of the movie (similar to adding the "happy ending", which is taken from, of all movies, The Shining), and that the whole thing was added to try to make the movie more interesting as a director's cut. In other words, it was a gimmick.
I guess you can argue you are then left with why Gaff left the unicorn, but I took that in and of itself to mean that Rachel had no termination date (unicorns being mythical creatures having to do with longevity).
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Ridley Scott's talent is demonstrable. Only a self-important ignoramus would deny a man's artistic achievements just because he once saw him drunk. And only a boor would behave as you behaved at that screening.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Doesn't really matter what Ridley Scott says, the movie is based on Phillip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and Dick says that Deckard was left as a personal philosophical exercise.
"If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." -Sun Tzu
I think I covered this when I said that the measure of an artist's worth is how well he communicates his meaning. If you drew a dog peeing on a bike and claimed it represented whatever, people would say you're nuts, (unless of course you imbued it with explicable symbolism which other people could see) but they would also say that you were a lousy artist. The picture would still represent whatever you intended it to, but that doesn't make it art.
Read the book.
That's just one point of view. And like I said before, people who believe that are fools.
My god, you're an aggressive idiot. Art can exist with or without context. A painting of a devil that was made when the artist was concerned about the Spanish-American war, can either have to do with this war, or it can be beautiful and chilling in its own right. Art is art. It does not have to conform to your little opinions.
Tell me what stone your 'fact' is written on, or which artists support your little idea, and I will respond with counterexamples of my own. And then it might seep through that you are wrong because you have one narrow view of something that is ambiguous in nature and therefore interesting.
>Aren't we supposed to hate DVDs, MPAA, RIAA, CSS and all their ilk?
What is boycotting DVD in favor of VHS
good for anyways? You money is still gonna go to MPAA members.
The MPAA is evil no matter what format you buy, so
if I'm gonna buy a movie, I'd rather buy the superior format.
IMO, the only way to boycott the evil MPAA is to
not see any movies, rent any movies or buy any movies - on any format.
And I don't know many people willing to do that.
-Goddamn right it's a beautiful day.-
...than someone who raises an objection that's worth answering, but then calls me an idiot. You remind me of my English teacher, who I always had to fight with because he thought that every story had One True Interpretation (with which everyone must agree) and I consider all the possible interpretations to be part of the final work.
the things which aren't in the work are sometimes more important than the things that are in it.
This depends on your definition of "in the work". By my definition, anything which might be perceived by a reasonable person is in the work, not just the things which are blatantly shown, but the nuances and suggestions. The suggestions and possibilities are a real part of the work, the intentions of someone who worked on the project are only real to the extent they are expressed in the final product.
The point I was trying to make is that an unequivocal decision by the director that Deckard was a replicant is unimportant compared to the clearly expressed (but not unquestionably verified) possibility that Deckard was a replicant. I believe he wished to express uncertainty, keep the audience guessing, and he succeeded. I do not believe that he wished to express that Deckard was definitely a replicant; his decision that Deckard was, is something he chose to keep out of the film, making the uncertainty more real than his decision.
ambiguity is very often the essence of good literature
Indeed, and if ambiguity is part of the work, then private decisions about the ambiguous topic are not part of the work (though a bias toward this choice can spring from this decision and become part of the work). If they have to tell you about it afterward, they didn't do their job of telling the story the way they intended.
astute viewers figured it out.
There is no real world that the creators are describing. There's no way to have "figured it out" because there's no reality underlying the expression (aside from the whole thing being a show put on with actors). Plots have holes, and either errors in production or deliberate ambiguity can create a work in which different possibilities are valid. This uncertainty is a real part of the work, regardless of what its makers intended.
Truly astute viewers merely noted the possibility, and did not get stuck in the mental mire of acting as if there's a real world behind the story.
A version of "Wizard of Oz" with a bit of minor editing would remove the final revelation that the whole thing was a dream. What if that had been the release cut? It would certainly match the book more closely (in which Oz is real). Fans of the movie might argue over whether it was a dream (earlier scenes in the movie certainly suggest it, though they don't make it 100% clear).
It wouldn't matter one bit if the director came out years later and insisted that the whole thing was supposed to be a dream, or even if the director's cut included the final revelation. The author clearly intended that it not be a dream. Whose vision is more valid? The director is only one player, and he doesn't even have final control over the editing. Many a director's decision is reversed in the cutting room.
Ultimately, the reality of the film's content is more important than the vision of the director. Whatever he thought, he may not have achieved his vision. Whether it was through interference or incompetence is irrelevant.
Note that the director's cut of Blade Runner is significantly different from the release version, and suggests much more strongly that Deckard was a replicant. Perhaps in the final editing for release, it was decided that people would like the movie better if Deckard wasn't a replicant. What, then, is the "reality" behind the expression?
When you sift out all the fiat decisions, only the uncertainty remains.
But in the book it is also said that the test used is flawed, and will give a false negitive with the newer, more advanced, replicants.
Phillip K Dick flat out said in interviews that Deckard is not a replicant in the book... In fact, he was upset that the movie made the character seem like one, even if it was ambigous in the theatrical release.
Of course, the movie is very different from the book, and the decided to go a different way. I don't have a problem with that... Most of my favorite movies-from-books are quite different than the source material... this one, LA Confidential, Psycho to name a few.
Josh Sisk
I love the original non-directors cut !!!! Harrison Ford's naration gives the movie a whole "Sam Spade film noir" kinda feel to it. In my opinion it kinda makes the movie seem darker.
This was SUCH a spoiler. CmdrTaco should have put the secret in the "Read More" portion of the post. Now I can't see Blade Runner fresh. BE more considerate next time, please.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
...because I consider Ridley Scott to be one of the visionaries of our time, and to get any insight into any film (or even commercial) that he is involved with makes my life richer. It makes me want to go back to his other films and look for things I haven't seen before. It gives me a different perspective and a new appreciation of his work.
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
he number of skin-jobs, though, really is a continuity error, not a hint as the article implies. There was originally another replicant named "Mary" who they eventually decided to cut out of the film before any of her scenes were shot, but the screenwriter didn't catch the change. In the workprint version, it was actually recorded correctly as "two got fried" (instead of just one), but they botched it again on the release print. Of course, they might've noticed the error later and left it in to stir the debate.
They also tried to change it in post production dubbing, but it was apparently bad enough that they left it in with the continuity error, which says a lot when you see the dubbing job in Hassim's shop.
OrcSlicer
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Clearly he didn't fail because enough people guessed it. But even if he had failed, it just would have meant that he did not adequately convey the story, not that Deckard wasn't a replicant.
I'm consternated that someone who has watched the directors cut does
not conclude upon some consideration that Deckard in indeed a
replicant. The fact that people still argue about this after the
directors cut is simply silly. The "textual" evidence is
overwhelming. Please see jabber's post for some details. I will only
add that the most *obvious* piece of evidence is the unicorn placed by
Gaff for Deckard to find as he is trying to escape with Rachel. It is
clear a message: "this unicorn is from your dream. A dream I can only
know about because you are a replicant."
And people wonder what is the use all of those literature classes!
One of the clear benefits is that they help one figure out relatively
simple (but *awesome*) films like Blade Runner.
When someone makes some silly claims about programming (usually
because of a lack of knowledge or experience), I often say "less talk,
more code." I think a lot of geeks say similar things. When it comes
to art, similar advice also holds: "less talk, more reading of serious
literature and more watching of sublime films." And all of those
literature classes do serve some purpose....
uh... The 9 year olds were right! Superman did fight Batman, It was called "The Dark Knight Returns". It's largely considered the Greatest work in the industry :) And yes it was REALLY, REALLY cool!
Deckard: "Deck of Cards", something a magician would use to perform a trick.
The actor who played Gaff (wasn't it Edward James Olmos?) looked somewhat magician-like -- slender, dark hair, mustache -- and his origami was reminiscent of a magician's card tricks. The secondary meaning of Gaff also supports the notion that he is manipulating a less-than-animate object through his use of Deckard.
Now hit me with some karma!
PS: I only just thought of this now, though earlier today I was reflecting on the fact that the protagonist in "A Catcher in the Rye" -- "Holden Caufield" -- also had a very overdetermined name ("hold in the field", that is, to be the catcher in the rye).
Well, seeing as how the title of the book its based on is "Do androids dream of electric sheep?", the unicorn dream helps point the viewer in the proper direction. Perhaps Ridley thought to answer the question like, "No, they dream about unicorns."
Check out the band Man... Or Astroman? who have a song entitled, "Philip K. Dick In The Pet Section Of A Walmart"
It's from the "Project Infinity" album. I also recommend the songs "Sferic Waves" "Escape Velocity" and "Put Your Finger In The Socket"
Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant.. but it was never concretely decided by the writers. It's still unknown to this day whether Hampton Fancher & David Peoples intended Deckard to be a replicant.
At one spot in the book Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (pg. 361), Peoples states: ".. what I had intended as kind of a metaphysical speculation, Ridley had read differently, but I now realize there was nothing wrong with his reading. That confusion was my own fault." Meaning: Peoples wrote an ambiguous ending suggesting there was no difference between replicant & their creator vs. Deckard (humans) and their creator.. but Ridley interpreted it as Deckard == replicant.
This is regardless to what Phil Dick may have intented in his book; Future Noir also informs us that Fancher read Dick's book, but Peoples did not. Peoples only stared with the script Hampton had at that stage and concentrated on the story/screenplay from that focus.
I would highly suggest any interested Blade Runner fans pick up this book (ISBN: 0-06-105314-7). It may not clear up all thing Blade Runner related, but it provides a damn greater amount of insight than even Ridley himself can provide on the topic. It is also one kick-ass read on the entire Blade Runner mystique.
-'fester
Of course he was a replicant. He dreamt of unicorns, and the cop made him little unicorns.
Consider that the cop, Gaff, may have made unicorns because *he* was a replicant as well. This would screw up the replicant count but add to the ambiguity, no?
Or the reason that Batty didn't let Deckard die was because even Batty knew Deckard was a replicant.
I don't really care if Scott says Deckard was a replicant or not, or if it's an accurate rendition of Dick's original short story (it's not a book). It's a good story, well told which leaves enough loose ends to be interesting.
Yes, but this doesn't work. I've thought about it, and realized that it would take just as much resources to maintain a copy of myself as it does to maintain the original. Thus, any extra work my copy does is promptly offset by the cost of feeding and housing him. I am no richer with a copy than I am on my own.
Even if you did have some way to finesse the issue, such as treating the copy as a slave laborer, making him sleep under your bed, eating only ramen, and turning his paycheck directly over to you, the profit would be marginal at best--and that's before counting the cost of making the copy in the first place.
And another thing: what's to stop the copy from taking over your life and making you sleep under the bed?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Yes.. Ridley Scott is the only reason there was ever any doubt.. The whole unicorn scene only appears in the director's cut and it is so poorly tacked in that it honestly looks like Scott's kid brother tapped over the scene. Original cinema version was the best, followed closely by the video (because Deckler spots the minute details in the picture only after putting a class of scotch down on it and magnifying it before using the computer to confirm his suspicions).. the directors cut was just lame.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I think the BBC article was mistaken. All replicants were illegal, and there were six illegal replicants Deckard was supposed to kill. (Well, actually only 5 since one "got fried" before Deckard is brought in.) However, only 5 "made their way to Earth". The sixth replicant was Rachel. Deckard was slightly surprised (and miffed) when he was told to retire her because he had previously been told he only had to kill the 4 renegades.
I actually read part of the original script for an Art of the Film class, and the ending (not filmed) in the script left no doubt that Deckard was a replicant. This is old news.
mm'kay, almost no MPAA. I'm not a rabid zealot. I try to watch good stuff. It's just the good stuff looks less and less like L.A. of 2000's to me, and more like, say, Prague of 1960's. So may just as well stop watching Hollywood crap completely.
For anyone wanting a good read, pick up this book. You will find more detail on BR than you ever wanted to know.
One thing the book details is that there are 5 (five!) versions of the same film, each slightly different from the others. These are (from Appendix B of Future Noir):
1) The Workprint
2) The San Diego Sneak Preview
3) The Domestic Cut
4) The International Cut
5) The Director's Cut
6) The Broadcast Version
From what I can remember from the book (and a quick re-perusal), the Embassy CLV LD or VHS tape is the probably the closest you will get to the original American screening, though you may pay a premium for it. There is also a Criterion LD version (said to be better image quality).
One version I haven't seen is a release on VCD - anybody know of one?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Just a few quick P.K.D. points. Imposter coming out sometime this year is based on a PKD story as is Minority Report (directed by Spielberg) coming out in 2001.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
What you say might be true if PKD didn't have input into the script and movie.
PKD had siginificat input into the movie and was pleased with the script.
Further if you look at how PKD took his own stories and rewrote them (ie radio free albemuth vs valis) then blade runner is a fitting adaptation.. the way he would have done it.
--
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
A film based upon a book is dependent upon the book as the authority. Dick did not, in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" ever convey the possibility of Deckard being a replicant. Read it closely and you will discover this. Moreover, replicants ARE human, in fact, "More human than human." They have the same emotions, motivations, behavior, and existance as anyone else. What they don't have is history, but that doesn't make them any less human, and that is what Dick was telling us. mailto:jsg@bluemarble.net
...a computer simulation, or a brain in a vat hooked up to a simulated environment. I wouldn't be too worried about a brain in a vat oozing out and scooping my brain out so it could sit in there.
Besides, I think the profit could be quite substantial. My earning potential is a long ways from the mere survival level.
<hidden from="TheDullBlade">
Yep, he's got it basically right. I keep him and my other copies (not all of myself) in a row of vats. He wonders why he has such a boring life; I made sure he wouldn't have anything more interesting to do than program computers. I'm thinking of cutting his link to slashdot, he wastes way too much time on it, and he's as expensive as you'd think.
-ButterKnife
</hidden>
I remember having many conversations on this topic with my friends a few years ago. In the end, we concluded that the question of, "Is he a replicant?" was more important than the answer of "Yes" or "No". Rather, the possibility that he's a replicant is what we savour.
We also noticed a few other well thought out sections of the movie. For example, remember J.F. Sebastian, the man with accelerated aging? He represents a human with the same problem as a replicant. His duality is Rachel, who is a replicant with the same problem as humans-- emotions. If I remember, most major characters in the film fit into some kind of pair opposite duality, centered around Decker.
-Ted
Let's live in a world where everyone is hypersensitive and can't handle a slightest amount of criticism, constructive or not. I mean, really. What have the brilliant scientific, artistic, and culture minds of history who's contributions were fueled by a need to better themselves and the world around them ACTUALLY done for us? Let's just retreat into a world-wide kindergarten state, where people can sue for hurt feelings and all the nasty truths are hid behind a sugar coating for our protection.
Screamers is truly dire. If you see it, you'll wish that Peter Weller had been in a nasty traffic accident or something before they could begin filming.
*** POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT ***
The whole nexus of the story is what does it mean to be human - throughout the movie (DC), we are led to believe that Deckard is a human (or at least, he thinks of himself that way). He acts and thinks like any of man on the street, so to speak. He laughs, loves, and crys - to himself, he is human.
His job is to hunt down, and "retire", offworld rogue replicants. He sees no real problems with this at first, after all, they are only machines, right. But then he meets Rachel - and his world is turned upside down, by realizing she is a replicant (and she doesn't know it!). Still, he is in love with her (she is the most advanced rep ever created, supposedly - and has what humans would call "emotions" - a blush response). He is divided on what to do - and in turn questions what it means to be human.
Still, he has a job to do - and pursues the reps. When it is finally down to the last rogue replicant (Roy Batty), this replicant is also questioning what it means to be human, as well. He admires Deckard's constant drive, and his compassion. In the end, before Batty dies - he saves Deckard from falling - in effect, showing a form of human compassion as well...
This has the effect on Deckard of being a soul-twisting end - he calls into question whether it is really right for him to hunt down replicants - are they closer to human than what we want to believe?
The final thing about the unicorn may have sent Deckard into an overdrive mode - Gaffe knew something about Deckard before Deckard knew it - which means Deckard had to be a replicant (similar to the spider thing and Rachel). With Deckard being a replicant, all it says finally is that humans are machines with feelings, replicants are machines with the capabilty of feelings - and that both are precious forms of life that shouldn't be eliminated, because one thinks itself more superior than the other.
Of course, this is all in context of the DC version - read Future Noir for more detail if you are interested...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It's *art*. It's *literature*. It is not *real*. There is no truth about it, only interpretation, and I can't see why his interpretation should be valued any more highly than any other!
Gotta love that Linux reliability. Sure is ready for the enterprise!
What does Linux have to do with anything? The article says the data loss was due to hard drives failing. What, does NT have some sort of miracle "hard drive lifespan lengthening" program?
Josh Sisk
I don't know if you're right or not, but it sure is a very Dickian plot!
:-)
I'm amazed that paranoia and trusting noone and nothing can be such brilliant fun when Dick does it
Yes, he brings it with him. I saw that. but where the hell did he get it from?
Think that was flamebait? You've obviously never met me in person...
Think that was flamebait? You've obviously never met me in person...
$email=~tr/.@/
It's been known for a long time that Scott wanted to end the movie with the replicant ending. As someone else pointed out, Harrison Ford has gone on record long ago that he hated the idea.
What makes you say that this defeats the meaning of the film? Given your point of view the fact that Deckard is a replicant enhances it!
If Deckard is a replicant which can fall in love with another replicant or otherwise what exactly makes him different from any other human being apart from the way he was brought into this world? This is the big question that PKD asks in his novels. What is it that makes us human? Is it our thoughts, our emotions, our memories or something else. Since the definition of a human is nonexistent it's quite conceivable that one day our planet will be populated by beings that will meet the common criteria for "humanity". PKD asks us how we are going to relate to those beings and gives one possible (gloomy) scenario. This is one of his favourite themes. You shoul read the Androids book (if you haven't already) and We can build you to see slightly different approaches to this issue. I vaguely remember that Martian time slip also had paragraphs relating to that. Anyhow a visit to www.philipkdick.com will give you more food for thought than my stupid blabbing. Take care.
Do yourself a favor if you're going out to rent this: get the regular, non-director's cut version. It's hard to find in most rental places, but it's much easier to follow and, in my opinion, more enjoyable because of it.
The chief, and really only, difference is that the director's cut has all the narration by Harrison Ford cut out. Gives the movie a more austere feel which some may prefer; but for my money, I've always enjoyed the regular version more.
John
Bah, it's obviously a fantasy because Arny's decompression, and the subsequent pressurization of Mars, is so damn fake. He'd be dead after that long in a vacuum, and it would take days for the atmospheric pressure to equalize.
For those of you who've never played Westwood's BladeRunner, I recommend you do so. The game has been out for several years, but it's recently become available again as part of an "Ultimate Sci-Fi Series" game collection that you can get pretty cheap.
Not only does the game faithfully reproduce important portions of the scenes, sounds, and moods of the movie, but you get some of the ambiguity as well. Each time you play the game as the BladeRunner Ray McCoy, it changes who is or is not a replicant. Your targets, your partner, even you yourself.
As the game progresses, you may think you've discovered what you really are, but often it's more complicated. For instance, the hard evidence that says you're not human might have been faked by a replicant you're hunting, or perhaps planted by a human who needs you out of the way.
Of the numerous possible endings available, some reveal your true identity, but my favorite has to be the ambiguous... [Continued in reply due to minor spoiler]
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
A few mom and pop video stores might have an old copy in their inventory. I rented Bladerunner sometime last year, expecting the directors cut---instead I got the theatrical cut with the happy ending. (Bleh. Studio suits.)
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Yes, Dick did work the screenwriters, giving his stamp of approval, but I've always seen it as a big failure and attempt at commercializing a great story.
I'll be very honest here. If I write a book in which two people go about in a red spaceship and blast up a few people for no other reason than a joyride, and you tell me "Oh, this represents the modern decline of society in unthoughtful amoralism", and I just meant it to be a fun jaunt about to people in a red spaceship blasting people for no reason, then I'm going to tell you that YOU, sir, are full of crap. To the brim.
/Azure Khan/
I create characters. I own the characters. I own their intentions, their futures, their pasts. They do what I say, and they MEAN what I say, and if they do something different in the future, well, that's my call, not someone saying "Oh, but so and so would NEVER do that!". Bloody hell they WOULD, if I say so.
The point is, as an artist, I create. As a viewer, you peruse that creation. If you do not get the message that I intended, then I have failed as a writer. If you enjoy it for some perceived message, by all means, recommend the book to your friends so they will buy copies. But nothing you imagine in your mind will change the intended meaning of the book, nor make the book MEAN what you care to make it mean. The characters motives and meaning are MINE to decide, and then you get to gauge the job I've done.
However, it's nice to be ambiguous about those meanings. It helps you to fail less.
--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
Well, considering it was based/i> on "WCRIFYW", that wouldn't be surprising, would it?
it's a good question, why is Scott's "word" considered official? Surely Phillip K. Dick is the only one who could give the OFFICIAL word since he wrote the thing. I mean come on, Scott could have said that Deckard was a fish with limbs grafted on. That would be just as official. Poor.
PKD wrote the book the film was based on, not the screenplay. Dick has authority over the book, but not the movie. A director is responsible for the content of his film, even moreso than the writer many times, since directors often bar the writers from the set. The fact is, the movie is very different from the book and has to be judged seperately.
Josh Sisk
The comment that each viewer must decide for himself the "meaning" of the story, or whether the Prisoner was responsible for the Village reminds me of another excellent Harrison Ford vehicle, "Witness". At the end, did he and the heroine get it on? (Admittedly, I am fishing for other people's thoughts here, 'cause I *still* haven't made up my mind on _this_ one :) pax
Last I heard it was an earth sized planet with a full atmosphere--just not breathable for earth life.
I think you heard wrong.
Mars has about half the diameter of Earth and 1/10 the mass.
The atmosphere is very thin. Not a vacuum, but you'd be unconscious in a matter of seconds (maximum!), since the atmospheric pressure is too low to facilitate absobtion of oxygen into the brain. You probably wouldn't explode but you'd go into immediate hypoxia.
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I agree with what a few other have said-- I prefer the original cut with the voiceovers (though yes, the happy ending bites).
Anyone have any idea where I can get a copy of the original on VHS or other format? I know a lot of people reading this would probably be interested in the answer....
Course I haven't been there. For that matter the moon could be made of cheese.
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
I'm glad to see someone else here has read this book -- & that it is available on this side of the Atlantic! (I bought my copy in Duesseldorf back in 1997.) It explains how the movie was created, much of the work that went into the creating the world of _Blade_Runner_, & the various releases of the film.
If you are interested in the movie, it is a *must* read.
As for the question whether Deckard is a replicant, I think it has to be answered by each viewer. An ambiguity similar to the one in the television series, ``The Prisoner": who was responsible for The Village? The protagonist's employers or the other side?
Be seeing you,
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Silly me, I should've mentioned that there's no oxygen there to be absorbed into the brain in the first place!
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Dude - you forgot Dune. Where it RAINS at the end.
Screamers sucked. I can't believe you're recommending that pile of shit.
If you want mystery, read the novel it's based on: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by the late weird genius Philip K. Dick. Then try to figure out who are replicants or not there... :-)
I must say, this game has incredible graphics, and it recreates the environment and locations from the movie 100% faithfully. Plus, the game requires thought - definitely a plus.
I picked up this game for about $15 at a Wal-Mart, and was absolutely amazed at the graphics, as well as gameplay. And comparing everything from tiny details like the lens flares, down to the audio and the score side by side with the movie.....let me just say you will be quite pleased.
Spend the $15 or $20 and pick up this game if you're a fan of the movie. It's definitely well worth it.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
is: how close did luke and leia get between finding eachother and finding out that even just kissing was incest?
I went to see the director's cut in the theater the same day I saw the original on TV. I thus had a good comparison with which to see what was added and deleted. As soon as the director's cut had ended, it was obvious. Why the hell would Deckard have dreamed about the unicorn, and his boss have left an origami unicorn behind, unless Deckard was himself a replicant? I mean, isn't it obvious?
I remember telling this to many people at the time. No one believed me. Alas, now I am vindicated.
Really, not that much changed between the director's cut and the regular. That dream sequence with the unicorn kind of stuck out, too. They kind of hit you over the head when they say something about being able to control replicants' dreams.
What I think is so amazing is how the entire film's meaning can change with a delta of about 30 seconds of video (forget the overdubbing...that was merely done to satisfy the Hollywood types). Kind of amazing. The film is 1000% better with the director's cut, as well.
At any rate, I'm glad that my hypothesis was correct. However, I'm kind of sad they had to make it definitive, though. One of the great things about art is that it can be interpreted in so many ways...
--Be human.
Guys, not to rain on your parade, but DVDs are, by their nature, compressed--that means you lose data. If the transfer is done carefully, you get a wonderful looking image, but if not, you'll start to see artifacts in areas like large color blocks (and black areas which this DVD has plenty of!! :) )
Laserdisc doesn't have this same type of limitations. So, that's why a lot of picky people who have the choice may sometimes prefer it over DVD.
Not blowing smoke up your ass. Go read some of the DVD critique sites your ownselves, already. Just because YOUR eyes on YOUR system don't see the artifacting, doesn't me that MY eyes on MY (very expensive, very large system) won't.
PKD was obsessed with two themes throughout his work.
1. what the hell is reality, and how do we go about defining it?
2. what does it mean to be human?
This later question is all that PKD was concerned with in writing DADOES. Deckard is very much human.. and his trial throughout the novel, is his inability to describe those traits that make us human. Deckard loves his synthetic sheep, and although somewhat ashamed of it, treats it every bit like a genuine sheep. Deckard has great difficulty differentiating between humans and replicants, even doubting himself. The novel ends with the poignant discovery that what he asumes is a living frog, is synthetic.
What Dick might be suggesting, is that there is very little to differentiate us from machines. Rather than concerning ourselves with the uninteresting question of 'Is Deckard a replicant', perhaps we should be asking 'Is he really any different from a replicant?'. Are the concepts of self and individuality an illusion, and can we really ever know ourselves?
Agreed. Additionally, all of the escaped androids who come to the Earth are identified in the book. In the movie, one is never identified.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
You're right, though, isn't there the stress on the fact that the 'new' sort of replicant (the type played by Sean Young in the film) was nigh undetectable by ordinary methods? Part of the power of both the book and the director's cut for me was the ambiguity.
Because in the end, how do we know if we're androids or humans?
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them." -Isaac Asimov
Eyes were a recurring symbol throughout the movie: the VK test focused on the eyes, Choo's Eye Shop, etc. In at least one shot of every "known" replicant of the movie, that character's eyes appear to "glow". (It's kinda like a photograph with red-eye.) This is not a fluke...Ridley Scott had to light the scene very specifically to achieve that effect. In addition to each known replicant, Deckard's eyes glow in one scene as well. It's the scene where he tells Rachel that he would not come after her since she saved his life, but that somebody would. He is in the background and sort of out of focus, but the glowing eyes are all too evident.
Origami was Gaff's way of communicating with Deckard...he made a chicken to call him a coward when he first goes to see Capt. Bryant, and he makes a little guy with a boner when they go to Leon's apartment to say he knows Deckard is attracted to Rachel. But without the unicorn dream scene, the origami unicorn at the end means nothing. I think it's a shame Ridley Scott revealed the secret to this scene, but I think that maybe he was just saying that the unicorn dream scene simply alluded to the fact that Deckard was a replicant.
There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
...to the guy responsible for video playback. (Playing back 24 frame video in sync with film camera is a whole 'nother topic) I worked with a guy named Joe Unson(I think that was his name) on the film "He Said, She Said" in 1990.
...just relaying another story that may or may not contribute facts to the fire...
I happened to be reading Dick's novel, "D.A.D.O.E.S." and he volunteered that he worked on the movie, "Blade Runner". He was told by Scott on several occasions that Dekard was a replicant and that he wanted to convey that fact in subtle ways throughout the film.
He told of one scene (I think just before Dekard retires Zhora) where Dekard is seen leaning against a shop window reading a newspaper. The display inside the window is filled with tv sets that are all distorted and generally messed up. At the end of the shot, Dekard steps away from the window and the tv images snap back into "good" reception. That was one of the specific scenes that Scott and the video playback guy co-ordinated during filming of the motion picture...
Whilst I had always noted the 'miscount' in the film, and I was aware of the speculation that Deckard was a replicant, I hadn't taken that last step of connected these two facts to come up with the idea that Deckard was the other escaped replicant that had made it to Earth (as the BBC article suggests). It seems a rather obvious leap now, although the film does give the impression that Deckard had been a replicant hunter for some time - and not a recently arrived escapee.
I was just debating this the other day. I was right, but it's still not much fun to have the mystery gone like that :)
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I don't think it qualifies as a spoiler if the movie is over 10 years old.
Loser.
Get out there and buy the DVD now! (Which is obviously why this info was leaked. . . sales must be lagging)
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Is Deckard's humanity, or lack of it, all that important. The argument I think is more important is whether or not Roy Batty is human. The film and the book discuss what it means to be human. Roy seemed to have quite human qualities. He saves Deckard's life. He seems more concerned with Priss's welfare than his own. In the movie empathy was the mark of humanity. Roy's actions, at the end of the film, suggest that he has empathy for other living things. The question we should ask is: Can a replicant be human?
I was always of the opinion that he was a replicant, because 'Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep' makes it much clearer, But I never wanted to *know*
Shawn Poulsen (Fruan)
"On Slashdot, many obvious things are insightful." - Annonymous Coward, 2000/7/9
I thought that was Paul using his powers to bring water from the Atreides homeworld to Arrakis - perfectly logical in the movie's "reality". Note that the stern look on his face is intermixed with the ocean scenes from the early parts of the film (Paul and his father talking by the shore).
Now, the skies clearing in seconds when the probe leaves at the end of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, that's something else...
The problem is I do watch the movie as movie. I also watch the movie from the book. I also read the book as a book. AND I SEE THE BOOK AS A MOVIE.
Was a tech in the business many years ago, the story makes the movie not the effects. Hell Star Wars had great effects (for that day), even the updates that where done to it, does not change the original look. (Though, I prefer the original over the re-release, I have both). In the end, the STORY was what made the movie.
Yes, cheap 1940 serial type story. But it is the story that got us wanting 5 & 6, then 1. But note... 1 was not as good as 4 5 or 6. Better computer graphics and the like... IT IS THE STORY that makes the movie. 1 story was week.
The story line for BLADERUNNER was one to show EYE CANDY, period - That is even what Ford implied in his quote.
All the director has done with his current quote is... SELL MORE DVD. IE: Increase his profits.
If lead was a replicant... his eyes would glow. That was the standard for this moive to show the viewer who was who. Even the OWL's eye glowed.
Anything else is a fancy. In the end BLADERUNNER (title stolen from another story) with set design from another timeline (San Francisco area was nuked in the book), is B movie with computer graphic, with no need to be seen again.
Let the movie be lost, and let the book raise again... maybe to be made into a GOOD movie.
There was no meaningful story there, and the director was to make pronoucements to help sells it appears.
... are usually a sign that your TV isn't calibrated properly. Many people (including, probably 'Buffy') are running their sharpness and/or brightness controls too high for optimum DVD viewing quality.
Excessive brightness settings in particular are a great way to bring out those blotchy areas of semi-darkness that appear on many DVDs. If you're not into springing for a full ISF calibration of your setup, the next best thing would be renting or buying a copy of Video Essentials and following the directions that come with it.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Well, what happened to Mars, in the end, was completely absurd, totally beyond the realm of possibility, so of course it was a dream.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I think he's talking about the two sequels to the book written by somebody else... K. W. Jeeter? Can't remember.
go buy an Apex 600a, because it's got the "secret menu", it makes you feel better that you can screw "them" by owning this hardware.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
They are assumed to meet for the first time, yet he knows who hunts him.
This always bothered me most. Being so well done a movie, this could not be just a glitch, could it?
If he came with the others to the mother planet, then got caught and reprogrammed, it could be possible. But why would they reprogram him yet keep his old name? Because this is a movie, and saying the name is a message, not RL.
Funny how Blade Runner still fascinates. I think it and Alien easily beat Gladiator, although it wasn't bad either. It just didn't have such a warning as its message.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
Thank you. I am VERY glad you chose to give a spoiler alert, unlike CmdrTaco. Argh.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Well, despite the rather intemperate and ill-informed comments that greeted this, there was indeed a sequel published some years ago, and indeed a sequel to the sequel.
Now it's my turn to be intemperate: what the shitty fuck is a hack author like K.W. Jeter, who mostly churns out second-rate movie and TV tie-ins doing pretending to be Phil Dick? It gets worse: enough people are obviously buying this cheap rip-off shit that he's been let out of daycare to write a fourth. Makes me spit, it does.
Of course, these trashy-flashy-action-and-cool-characters ripoffs gloss over all the profound and significant stuff that made "Do Androids Dream..." and "Blade Runner" so good. They contain nothing original to make up for this loss either.
nal 11
I'm probably the only one here, but I would have rather not known this, since I haven't seen the movie yet.
I think the reason for the rather different themes of those last three books (self v. society rather than self v. self) was Dick's acceptance of his insanity-- he had learned to live with the voices in his head (bka VALIS) by accepting them as not only benign, but benevolent. In his earlier ( and some would say better) work, he was trying to reconcile external reality (represented variously by society, history, his critics, etc) with internal reality (longing for human contact, search for safety, or the simple self-loathing of The Crap Artist) via self-examination and self doubt, and, less obviously, via re-creation of external reality in the act of writing itself. Throughout, the contrast between his internal reality and the world he lived in produced some wonderfully illuminating narratives.
It's unfortunate that the literati are only lately willing to look for illumination within the sci-fi "golden ghetto," but I hardly blame them-- much sci-fi is, from a traditional literary standpoint, utter crap. There has been a much wider acceptance of the notion that good literature can be written by crazy people (ever heard of Sylvia Plath?), but it would appear that this trend (let alone the ongoing literary critique of the very definitions of insanity) has escaped your notice entirely.
He ruined a great argument topic! Blegh.
Not the same caliber movie, but, along the same lines would be revealing whether the Total Recall thing was real or imagined. it's just not fun if you can't argue with your friends afterwards.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Neither the book nor the movie makes it clear exactly what a replicant is, other than an artificial human. Their brains are obviously manufactured, since the new version of the brain is crucial to the plot of the book. However, since it's impossible to tell a replicant from a human by anything other than a detailed autopsy or a psychological test, they obviously have human cells and organs. IOW, they seem much more like clones than robots, although perhaps an "assembled clone", created from original DNA instead of copying a person.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
His interpretation should be valued more highly than any other because he directed it! You can't presume to tell an artist what his work means. Of course some people don't like the idea that creative people have control of their own ideas, but those people are fools.
Fortunately BLADE RUNNER was left to find its own center (and beginning and ending), largely at the hands of audiences -- the producers screened and polled extensively (at least by early 80's standards..), then continued to edit based on feedback.
Scott's later unresearched philosphical half-noodlings and attempts to take credit for something bigger than himself seem vaguely pathetic. He might be a nice man, but at this point his views should be considered nothing more than amusing trivia to BLADE RUNNER scholars, and no more authoritative than any other interesting viewpoint.
I guess maybe there are two (if not more sides) to art. What I intend and what people take from it. And maybe that's what separates artists; what one strives for.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Of course, the unicorn and the number of replicants were big hints, but there are two larger ones.
Most obvious is the other blade runner's last line "You've done a man's job, sir." I think that one speaks for itself.
Also, a strong point is made of always showing replicants (even animals) at some point or another with red-eye (a lens-generated optical illusion where the color of the retina is brought out by a combination of angle and lighting, common in flash-photography). Deckard is the only "human" that we see this effect on....
I was so pissed about this film. The studio decided that it was a bomb because the test audience didn't get it. Instead of requiring that it be butchered, they could have clued into the fact that it was perfect for the college audience (probably the only people in the audience who walked away saying "wow") and marketed it heavily. It came out the same week as E.T., which could have been perfect. Instead of letting it get drowned in E.T.'s wake, it could have been played up as the dark underdog, which would have had the mid-80s fuck-authority types flocking to this film. As it stands everyone that I know who was a punk in the mid-80s loved this film, but many did not "discover" it until later.
On an almost unrelated point, if you like P.K.Dick, you should check out Screamers. They butchered the ending into a standard Hollywood thing, but the rest of the movie is remarkably P.K.D. The original took place on earth in a USSR vs US war. The movie moves to outer-space and takes place on a mining colony, but it's the same story right down to the dolls....
If you have differing info, maybe you could ...I dunno, mention the movie by name. Yeesh.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Well, it was just a coincidence that he just happened to naturally expire at the same time he was immersed in cold water. His time was just up.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It would have made a great series - had they gone say, two seasons before Deckard found out the truth himself. . . then maybe another season, before he got retired himself. Then it could end, and we could all be happy, and nobody would have to bitch about the series going down the toilet because the writers were getting tired and scraping the bottom of the barrel, like so so many other sci fi series (*cough* star trek).
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It *would* be cool if Superman fought Batman. VERY cool. Too bad Christopher Reeves is paralyzed. Although, I have no idea who would make a good Batman. Obviously, the people who are making the Batman movies don't either.
Ah, the old Frank Miller's Dark Knight series. . . didn't they redo some of that in Batman Beyond?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I liked the ambiguity. Oh well. This has been discussed for a while; it was a frequently asked (and discussed) question.
Its much preferable for me to imagine that Deckard was human, and that the androids dilemma over the reality of memories extends to the human breed as well.
This view makes for more interesting speculation, than whether he was an android or not, IMHO.
I might agree with that for a painting of a book. But a film is clearly not the product of a single artist, so there is no individual to give 'intent' to. A director is important, possibly the most important person on the set. But he or she is not the lone artist.
1) VC tests are friggin' useless.
2) With the proper programming, anything is possible.
3) Fans of the film have been emotionally drawn to an emotionless machine.
4) Now we have to watch the film a few more times to fully understand what the hell's going on.
5) Yes, I saw the Millenium Falcon in the film too. http://www.bladezone.com will show you were it is.
6) The character Deckard was so perfectly convincing that we must assume that he was running with a Linux kernel; The other Replicants with their emotional problems were all running Windows.
We've all suspected for a while; The editing of the film made scientifically proving Deckard was a Replicant probable but unknown, but dropping this bombshell destroyed my 15-year-old view of it.
It hurt, but it also warms me to know that the guessing is all over.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
My roommate has a book on Bladerunner that talks about this whole thing. The original screenwriter wrote Deckard's part as a human who came to understand the replicant perspective. It was Scott as director who changed the script to make him a replicant. Apparently, they had some pretty heated debates about it, but that probably contributed to the ambiguity in the final version which is so perfect.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
NO, the real question about Jack Dawson is whether or not James Cameron was unaware (as he claims) of the real-life James Dawson when he wrote the script. James Dawson was a crew member of the Titanic and is now one of the most popular attractions in the Titanic section of Halifax's Fairview Cemetary.
Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? has an excellent explanation of the Deckard dilemma.
Why wait for Ridley Scott, when you can read the book?
I, for one, am SO relieved that this announcement/admission has occurred. If there is anything that has had my friends and I closer to fist-fights while drinking our way through the long winter nights, I don't know of it... Now, at long last, I can say "Look, Deckard was a replicant! I READ it on SLASHDOT!"... There's no way that won't settle an argument between a bunch of beer-soaked Canadians!
--8<--
In the book, Deckard is tested and is not a replicant. Christopher Dick toyed with the idea and decided against it.
Ridley, on the other hand, did make a conscious decision to make him a Replicant - he even said so in a book about the making of the film.
Personally, I prefer the book, though the film is an excellent rendition - much better than most film renditions of books.
T.
I, for one, will never rent a DVD, or buy a DVD player, or otherwise put my hard-earned $.$ into those bastards' pockets. Not until they get their ways straight.
Just my ${LOCAL_CURRENCY}0.02.
I saw a documentary about "The Usual Suspects" in which Chris McQuarrie (the writer) said that he and Bryan Singer (the Director/Producer) both knew who Keyser Soze was, but they disagreed. Gabriel Byrne had a different idea of who Keyser Soze was -- himself!
The Keyser Soze character was designed to be completely ambiguous. The most obvious interpretation was that it was Verbal Kint, but that's not the only interpretation.
I think Ridley Scott means that in his interpretation, Deckard was a replicant. However, it might've just been a soundbite for Channel 4! =)
I'm a big P.K. Dick fan too, but I don't think you can criticize Blade Runner for not being faithful to 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'. The two stories are almost totally different except for the premise of living in a future with Androids.
For any fans of the movie who have not read any P.K. Dick, pick up Androids, but don't expect any similarities.
Here's something I wrote in 96, for a Sci-Fi lit class I took:
I have seen Blade Runner a number of times. I have read the Philip K. Dick book on which the movie is based. I have seen the film several more times since then, in such gory detail that I feel I know more about the movie then most people. I've read several interviews with cast and crew, and I know about the differences between the several versions of the movie in existence.
I can appreciate the movie on it's own merits, and I can see it as a skillful adaptation of the philosophy of P. K. Dick's book. I've become so familiar with the work, that the last few times I've watched it, I've decided to change my point of view. I approached the movie with a preconceived notion, and found a surprising number of substantiating facts and impressions to support my hypothesis. In this paper I will try to show that my alternative view of BladeRunner, though not the most straight forward, is valid and possibly correct.
I propose that Rick Deckard is in fact himself a replicant. I further propose that Gaff, a character not found in the original work by P. K. Dick, is the real Blade Runner and furthermore that he, Gaff, uses Deckard to do his dirty-work.
To show that Gaff is Deckard's handler requires that I first show that Deckard needs handling, that he is a replicant. There are many instances in the film why this could be true.
Throughout the movie, replicants are shown as having a glow in their eyes. There is a slight glow in Leon's eyes as Dave Holden tests him for empathy. The artificial owl in the Tyrell building has eyes that glow. As Pris makes herself at home at J.F.Sebastian's apartment, her eyes have that same glow. So do the eyes of Roy as he speaks to Tyrell and at times while he hunts Deckard.
When Rachel and Deckard begin to fall in love her eyes have this very same glow. At this time Deckard's eyes also glow. This might only be a lighting technique, designed to show that Deckard is somehow connected to Rachel. But since the other replicants also have this glow in their eyes, Deckard is like all of the replicants. He is made to look like a replicant. Though this is the only visual hint that Deckard may be a replicant, it is reinforced with many insinuations of the same in the plot.
It is very striking that Deckard can climb the exterior of the rain drenched Bradbury building after Roy has dislocated two of his fingers. How could he do this? Very easily, if he is a physically superior replicant. He appears to be in pain and struggling, but this is because he believes that he is human, not because he necessarily is human.
Why would Deckard believe that he is human? For the same reason that Rachel initially believes that she is human, implanted memories. Deckard truly believes that he is Rick Deckard - a Blade Runner. He believes that he has always lived his current lifestyle; even that he was once married to a woman who called him 'sushi' due to his 'cold fish' personality. But he calls Rachel, a known replicant, at home and asks her to join him at Taffy Lewis's night club. By doing this Deckard acknowledges that a replicant can have a normal private live. If Rachel can, so can Deckard.
During the course of the movie, we learn that replicants treasure their memories, whether these are real or implanted makes no difference. We can infer that it is not enough for replicants to have memories, they need something tangible to make their memories seem real. Replicants keep photographs. Roy refers to Leon's lost photographs of Zhora as 'precious'; the taunt in his voice serves to show that Leon is extremely attached to them. Rachel offers a picture of herself as a little girl to Deckard, as proof of her humanity. She loses hope only after Deckard points out in gory detail that it is a false memory. Before then, it doesn't matter that the memory is implanted, she has a picture she can hold, proof that it really happened.
Deckard himself hoards photographs, his apartment is literally cluttered with them. This suggests that Deckard has memories that go back for generations. But didn't Tyrell himself tell Deckard that replicants can be better controlled through implantation of memories? If Deckard is a replicant he has the potential for causing a great deal of suffering to the humans that surround him daily. He must be kept under strong and constant control. This would require that he have a great deal of memories. He has pictures to prove that he does.
The most blatant suggestion that Deckard is a replicant comes from Rachel. At one point she asks him if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself. Rather then answer, Deckard conveniently and instantaneously falls asleep, 'like a switched off light', or a shut off machine.
All this certainly suggests that Deckard is a replicant, and if he is one, then he must somehow be manipulated in order to have him act as a Blade Runner. A replicant would not willingly hunt down other replicants. I propose that Gaff is the true Blade Runner, that he uses Deckard as his work-horse, and that his lieutenant - Bryant - is fully aware of this arrangement.
The opening scroll of the film clearly states that replicants are used where the work to be done is too hazardous for humans. The hunting of replicants is certainly hazardous work. After all, Dave Holden has been placed on life-support after being shot by Leon. Gaff certainly makes his job much less hazardous by having Deckard do the dirty-work for him. Gaff does his job as Blade Runner, but manages to keep himself out of danger. He monitors Deckard's performance without putting himself in Deckard's view. He chauffeurs Deckard to the precinct to meet Bryant, and takes him to the Tyrell building. Gaff also gets Deckard started on the hunt for Leon by joining him in his search of Leon's apartment. Other then these direct interactions, Gaff keeps to the shadows, emerging only to verify that replicants have been retired, or to make sure Deckard is doing his (Gaff's) job.
While Deckard is researching the snake-scale found in Leon's bath-tub, there is a police officer in the background. Though he might be going about routine police business, he could also be monitoring Deckard for Gaff. In fact it might even be Gaff himself in uniform. While Deckard is pursuing Zhora through the streets, an instant after he passes a Hari-Krishna procession, the careful viewer can make out a man in the crowd. This man is carefully watching Deckard run after Zhora. This man is Gaff. After Deckard retires Zhora, the police are on the scene as soon as her body hits the ground. How did they know to be there? Easily, Gaff was watching and notified them to stand by. Gaff also arrives shortly after Roy's death, again only to verify that the replicant is no longer on his list.
All conversations between Deckard, Gaff and Bryant seem to have a double meaning alluding to Deckard's replicant identity. After Deckard is escorted to the police precinct (by Gaff), Bryant informs him that "if you're not cop, you're little people" meaning both that if Deckard doesn't do as he is told he will be disposed of, and that Deckard is not much of a person, since he's not human. After Deckard retires Zhora, Bryant tells him "You look as bad as that skin job..." - meaning Zhora, and then comments to Gaff "You could learn a lot from this man, Gaff...". The former implies that Deckard looks to him like a replicant, and the latter that Deckard the replicant is doing a better job then his puppet master, Gaff, would do in person.
Following Deckard's retirement of both Roy and Pris, Gaff tells him: "You've done a man's job, Sir" referring to himself, as in 'you have done this man's job', or saying that 'you have done this job as well as a man.' Gaff's next comment: "I guess you're through." and Deckard's reply: "Finished!", could quite possibly signify that now that Gaff has no more use for him, Deckard expects Gaff to retire him. Gaff also tells Deckard "Too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"... This last statement is particularly interesting since it shows that Gaff knows Deckard so well as to know of his plans to run away with Rachel. Gaff knows what Deckard is thinking. He knows Deckard's motivations, thoughts and dreams, as well as Deckard knows Rachel's memories. Deckard has seen Rachel's memory implants. Gaff must have seen Deckard's.
Gaff's deep understanding of Deckard's mind comes out through his origami. While in Bryant's office, Deckard is unwilling, and quite possibly afraid, to engage the missing replicants. Gaff folds an origami chicken out of a discarded napkin. "I know you" says Gaff through this action, "You're scared". Once Deckard gets involved in the detective work of hunting down the replicants, once he becomes excited to be searching Leon's apartment, Gaff makes a match-stick figure of a man with an erection. By doing so he is saying "I know you, this turns you on, you're getting off doing this job".
The most significant piece of origami, one that most definitelly shows that Gaff is inside of Deckard's head, is the tin-foil unicorn. After Gaff seemingly turns his back and allows Deckard to escape with Rachel, he leaves the unicorn on Deckard's door-step as if to say "I am always watching you, I know you're with her and neither of you is real. You are both myths, not really alive". An even deeper significance of the origami unicorn is available to the viewer of the Director's Cut version of Blade Runner. This version of the film includes Deckard's dream sequence about a real, living unicorn. The appearance of the origami unicorn at the end of the movie shows that Gaff knows Deckard's mind so well that he can even see into his dreams. For Gaff to be so familiar with what makes Deckard tick, he must certainly have seen Deckard's memory implants.
There is another, additional message contained in the tin-foil unicorn. As Gaff's last words to Deckard echo from the past: "Too bad she won't live", Gaff seems to say "Here, I'm leaving her for you". Deckard nods, as if in the realization that he will now have to live in fear (of losing Rachel), just as all other replicants before him have lived in fear of being retired.
Gaff's origami could also be seen as a form of subliminal mind-control over Deckard. The chicken, a symbol of fear, to instill anxiety and tension that would make him appear and behave like a real Blade Runner on the trail of rogue replicants. The aroused male figure to program Deckard with an excitement, an urgency and the desire to complete his job and achieve his goal. The unicorn, as a reinforcement of his psychological grasp on Deckard, to make Deckard feel like a prisoner in the Panopticon, always under scrutiny, and trying to hold on to a dream.
Through the origami unicorn and his other origami figures, his words to Deckard, and his constant presence in Deckard's shadow, Gaff is shown as being intimately familiar with, and in complete control of, Deckard. Deckard's show of unusual physical prowess, his sentiment for photographs and the replicant glow in his eyes all suggest that Deckard is a replicant.
This may be a far-fetched interpretation of the film, but considering the wealth of circumstantial evidence from the film, and the fact that the same implication is made in Dick's original book, it certainly is a valid one.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
For the record:
;)
-Philip K. Dick had a much cooler way of handling the inherent hypocracy of Deckard's character in the book, and he made it 100% absolutely clear that he was NOT a replicant (though he had some doubts midway through the book).
-Harrison Ford doesn't think Deckard is a Replicant and argued the point with Scott during shooting.
-Ridley scott didn't write the screenplay.
BTW - the whole conspiracy thing thing whereby there are six replicants and then Ford only takes care of five so he's the sixth - hate to burst your bubble on that one but there WAS a sixth replicant named Mary (who is in the book) who was cut from the film during shooting.
(my)$.2
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Crap, if Deckard was a replicant, maybe I'm a replicant and don't know it. Time to get the life insurance policy with triple indemnity for being "retired"....
--demiurge
You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!!
Score one for the downtrodden hacker!
Is that I keep hearing the explanations that don't belong there while I'm watching the rough version. It's fading away, but will take another ten years or so before I can watch the real thing without the dummified version getting in the way with its safe explanations.
Then again, that I saw the "dummy" version so many times that I keep hearing the voice-overs, tells that I didn't consider it bad at that time
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
:)
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
there was a mistery at all. I thought that the unicorn dream was a pretty solid hint. Never realised that someone could have any doubts. Oh, well...
I, along with many others, disagree. You made on big flaw in making such a bold statement. Art can easily mean less than what the artist intends. Artists are just as flawed as the rest of us, and are seldom perfect . You cannot deem someone's work as art just if the artist said it was. If I drew a dog peeing on a bicycle and said that it represented the downfall of common culture due to the plague of injustice within our state court systems, people would say I'm nuts. You, however, think that not only does a canine relieving himself on a two-wheeler symbolize the mudslide of modern society, but people that argue otherwise 'are fools'. Now I realize I haven't mentioned Blade Runner (and by the way, I too think he's a replicant), but I wanted to teach you that generalization is the easiest of logical fallacies to get into.
--------- Taylor R. Flagg Big Cheese Radioactive Reverie www.RadioactiveReverie.com
Though Blade Runner draws as much from Dan O'Banon's, "The Long Tommorrow" (illustrated by Mobius, both Dan and Mobius worked on Blade Runner)as it does from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", I think Philip K Dick should be the authority on whether Deckard was a replicant or not. I think the story is much more poignant with the issue unresolved, but prefer to think that he wasn't a replicant. After all, the idea was that the replicants were more human than Deckard.
This is all just to drum up publicity.
It'll get into the UK newspapers and entertainment news programs. People will then watch Channel 4 to watch the documentory and film. This will amke bothg Channel 4 and the advertisers happy. There will definatly be FILMFOUR (C4's 6 pound-a-month film channel) trailers before and after the film and documentory. People will add it to there Digital Sattalite / Digital Terrestrial / Cable package. Channel 4 gets lots more money.
One question I have is why BBC NEWS online carried this story - after all BBC ONE and TWO are competing channels...
Then again, at least Channel 4 have now got the first-run rights to a Warner Bros. programs, instead of Sky (R. Murdoch owns this, so no chance of Sky losing FOX programs...). Pity they'll be first run on a premium channel, E4.
-- This is not a sig. But I'm a liar.
Deckard is well established (and, I think semi-retired) as a replicant hunter
:)
In his mind and on the stage with the other officers, yes.
At any given moment, you cannot be sure whether your memories are real. At any time, you might have been put on your place and booted up with a fresh set of memories. At least in the film's Dickish mindset
He has no family. He has immense amounts of whisky-blurred momental memories, backed up by a huge bunch of fotoes, almost as a double-proof.
I hope I do not sound insisting, I count as one of those for whom the question is more important.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
For me, the comparison tracks pretty closely.
:)
Dune was a good movie in it's own right (IMO). It shared quite a bit with the book as well, IMO. Having read the book, the movie was a good mapping. Either you agree or you do not.
Same with DADOES and Bladerunner. The movie did touch on the items you mention, but it did so within certain constraints. There is just too damn much in the original book to make a 1:1 translation to the big screen. Very few books go 1:1 with the screen - those that do are really bad books.
There was no Mercerism in the movie, the idea of artifical pets was barely touched on (Zhora's snake), there was no mood machine... You're right, in stark, literal terms, the two are totally different. But on a deeper level, the ideas of compassion (Mercerism), and one's place in the world (as you put it) (Deckard running away with Rachel to make their own life together) translate pretty well.
It all depends on how hard you squint, and how much you want handed to you on a silver platter (as opposed to thinking about it yourself and making the connections that way).
Now, for a book-based movie, with writter approval, that fell totally flat... Let's talk Johnny Mnemonic.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
....
....
--Hey Doctor Jones! No time for love!
Untrue. Deckard was a human. Read the book Blade Runner was based on: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick
I've tried fiddling with the settings in the card driver but even when I knock the brightness down as far as it can go, it's still too bright. I can adjust the brightness in the DVD player but it makes it too dark for the monitor and the excessive brightness causes a pale patch down the left side of the screen anyway.
In the end, I'm not sure if it's the video card screwing up or the video signal calibration on the TV. I amy have to do some other testing to find out.
Don't know why I posted this here, just felt it was something I had to say. On the other hand, this could be a common experience and the reason people are getting this phenomena. I noticed it partiularly bad in "Blade" in the shadows and in the lens-flare scenes. I guess if brightness is off normally, you tend to compensate and ignore it but when it starts showing up artifacts, you tend to take more notice.
Rich
If it wasn't completely resolved in the film, it doesn't matter. The uncertainty was made part of the film (a very interesting and important part), the conclusion was not.
I think that is one of the most shallow comments I've ever read. I can not BELIEVE it got modded up to a 5. HOly cow.
Look, I know this might be hard to comprehend with your sophomore level of literary analysis, but ambiguity is very often the essence of good literature (of which I definately consider Blade Runner to be a part of.) The things which aren't in the work are sometimes more important than the things that are in it. Subtle implications are difficult to communicate; the hints strewn throughout the film were just substantial enough that astute viewers figured it out. It's the dull dolts like you that take away all the intelligent discussion in topics like this. The fact that the director has come out and said this is definately worthwhile, considering the existence of these hints.
Go back to watching Dukes of Hazzard. Try and steer clear of complex plots. They seem to confuse you.
- Rev.In previous interviews and a documentary in the early '90s Scott has admitted to never actually reading _Do Android Dream of Electric Sheep_. Dick was quite upset with Scott as I understand, in fact, and against the production of the movie.
Although the movie is one of the greatest of all time and Because Philp K. Dick is no longer with us I'd urge readers and viewers to keep the book and the movie separate. Obviously the movie is just Scott's version of the Dick's theme.
What did da Vinci intend when he painted the "Mona Lisa?" I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. How, then, are we to measure its artistic merit?
I really had hoped to confine this discussion to films, specifically Blade Runner, but since you can't seem to stay on the topic I'll digress for a moment. Since we don't know what da Vinci intended when he painted the Mona Lisa, we can't judge its artistic merit. If he intended to communicate that her husband had just died and she was very sad over the loss, he didn't do such a good job. It's generally assumed that the message we get from the Mona Lisa is the one da Vinci intended (it certainly seems clear when looking at it) but if that assumption is incorrect, so is the assumed artistic merit of the painting.
t's possible that the "Mona Lisa" was simply a portrait. da Vinci's only intent would have been to faithfully represent his subject. If true, does that mean that the painting is suddenly no longer a work of art?
That's a tricky question. Some would argue that a snapshot isn't a work of art, others would argue that it is. If da Vinci's intent was only to represent his subject literally then the Mona Lisa is no more art than a snapshot. Interpret that however you see fit.
Bah! Such foolishness refutes itself. It needs no more words from me.
I agree, but I really wish you'd recognized that your foolishness needed no more words before you posted it.
> WTF? Did I watch the "original" happy ending or > the true ending?! Does anyone know?
If you watched the film noire version, you saw the happy ending. The "true" version contained no voice overs, as well as the unicorn dream. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and rent one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.
Surely the fact that it's so abitrary shows that this is too simplistic a model to use?
This wasn't a skillful adaptation of PKD's DADOES, it was just a big budget action movie trying not to be a big budget action movie sharing as little as possible with the book. The book explores the meaning of being human, reality, religion, and one's place in the world as a lot of PKD's books do. The movie provides some eye candy and "thoughtful" close-ups of Harrison's face between kills.
This isn't your typical book vs. movie argument, as the movie has little to do with the book other than sharing the setting and a couple scenes.
I guess I generally fail to see any real clue that he's a replicant. I don't see the unicorn as a clue, and fail to see others. Help? (Yes, I read the article, it still doesn't make sense.)
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
If you watch the eyes, every artifical gets that weird reflection. Starts with the owl. The ONLY time Dekard has them is when he tells Rachel that he would not come after her. He is out of focus and THEN his eyes glow and he says; "but somebody would." The cops are artifical, not doing anything, but following commands. He is getting to be more human; that is PKD's point.
hal
If I drew a dog peeing on a bicycle and said that it represented the downfall of common culture due to the plague of injustice within our state court systems, people would say I'm nuts.
Some would - some would not. You are generalizing...
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Not due to software. Seems to me that this would have happened to just about any OS and any HW combo save something rather grotesquely expensive like massively redundant, clustered servers.
In other words, go troll somewhere else loser- you don't even know what you're talking about.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
if i had only seen the question, i could have rented the movie, tried to figure it out, THEN read the answer! now it's no fun!
Your opinions are at odds with pretty much the entire art world, but you're certainly entitled to them. When you make statements of fact, however, you're obligated to back them up. Who exactly is it that makes that general assumption? It certainly isn't most art critics or da Vinci scholars, since that very subject is quite frequently debated in art circles. It isn't even known whether the Mona Lisa is a portrait of an actual person. There are some theories, including one that Leonardo used himself as a model. And it certainly isn't clear to most of us exactly what he intended when we look at it. Indeed, its very ambiguity is what makes the painting so fascinating.
If we found da Vinci's diary tomorrow and it indicated that the Mona Lisa was a portrait and one he wasn't particularly satisfied with, it is assured that the consensus of the artistic merit of the Mona Lisa would not be affected in anyone's opinion other than your own. But you'd be quite free to regard it as drivel while the rest of us consider it a fascination work, regardless of Leonardo's intentions.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
When you make a small, shallow (however enjoyable) movie out of a large, deep book, I guess it gives you a license to change the characters to whatever you like. For anyone who HASN'T read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," without which I daresay Ridley Scott would hardly have had the wit to put together the "Blade Runner" story, I urge you to do so. Judge for yourself who the master storyteller really is.
BB
So why would Bryant make such a stupid slip if he knew Deckard was one of the escaped replicants? It would have been extremely dangerous if Deckard had found out, and it would have been easy to lie.
I just want to know whether both Rachel and Deckards had limited life-spans or not. Gaff's enigmatic phrase "Too bad she won't live - then again who does?" could be interpreted either way.
Horsefeathers, fiddlesticks and poppycock. I'm a fool? You, sir, are an unlearned idiot.
What did da Vinci intend when he painted the "Mona Lisa?" I don't know. You don't know. No one knows. How, then, are we to measure its artistic merit? If the measure of da Vinci's worth is how well he communicated his intentions, we are left with no way to judge Leonardo as an artist. A hack or a master? We can't say.
It's possible that the "Mona Lisa" was simply a portrait. da Vinci's only intent would have been to faithfully represent his subject. If true, does that mean that the painting is suddenly no longer a work of art? Bah! Such foolishness refutes itself. It needs no more words from me.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
I'm sorry, I don't know much about the Mona Lisa. The little reading I've done indicated that the subject was known to be a lady named Lisa del Giocondo.
When you say that if it suddenly became known that the Mona Lisa were a work which Leonardo were not particularly satisfied with, you assert that "the rest of us" would continue to view it as before. I must disagree. Its value, both fiscally and as viewed by art lovers, would drop. It would still be as aesthetically pleasing and mysterious as it ever had been, but as art it would no longer be nearly so impressive.
A waterfall or a sunset are beautiful things that I never get tired of seeing, but they are by no means art.
Does anyone know which PKD's book were turned into screenplays. I only saw "Blade Runner" and "Total Recall". Is there more?
rachel was different to the others in that she had memory inplants (remember that first tyrell/deckard scence) ... same as deckard...
Then why can't he fight? He's relatively
powerless in Leon's grasp, much less in
Roy's; even Priss is twice his strength
at least. He has a considerable past, at
least with Bryant and Gaff and the people
in the community (lunch counter).
But, if Ridley says so, then I
guess it must be so, unless he's letting
the urban legend drum up some further
interest...
For another reason why I disagree with your view, I suggest reading Frank O'Hara's "Why I am not a Painter." Artists of all types often claim that they have no idea where a work is going, that the work itself seems to be in control and they merely an observer along for the ride. The art, they say, uses them as a tool to express itself.
As for your contention that the value of the Mona Lisa would be affected by proof that da Vinci was dissatisfied with it, I offer Vincent van Gogh as refutation. Vincent and his brother, who supported him, were only able to sell ONE painting in his life time. He committed suicide, poverty striken and believing himself a failure, certain that his paintings were worthless trash. It doesn't seem to have affected their present value a great deal.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Well sure. Personally what _I_ had wondered was, did he come from a post-apocalyptic future in which the world was conquered by robotic Harlan Ellisons ;)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Despite what I just said, I think if you look at the movie as a hard-boiled detective story, rather than as a science fiction story, it's pretty clear that Decker is clearly (physically) a replicant, as every hard-boiled movie from Maltese Falcon to Chinatown has the detective screwed before the case even begins.
I remember seeing a movie a few months ago and telling my girlfriend as we watched it that it was totally ripped off from UBIK, but I can't remember the movie itself now. I don't think that it was, strictly speaking, a science fiction movie. Does this sound familiar to anyone?
I don't mean to be contrary, but why does the director of a film get any special priviledge to decide its interpretation. The film is a piece of art, of literature, and stands as itself. Nobody can just decide the he is a replicant any more than they can decide that he's not.
We would all go 'oh, okay, that's that sorted' if he came out and said 'In fact, there weren't any replicants at all' - he just doesn't have the power to do that. The clues are there (or not, as the case may be) in the film, and it is only on the basis of the contents of the film that we can say either way.
It's like the way you can read a book, and then find a new illustrated version and say 'nope, the characters just don't look like that' and your interpretation can't be any less valid (if you've read and considered the book) that the author or the illustrator. The argument 'that's how I imagined them when I wrote it' just doesn't cut the mustard - (and if you argue that it does, surely the book Blade Runner is based on decides it, so it isn't the director's choice after all!
Doesn't that kinda make it so? Directors have a huge amount of power when making movies. How they interpret the script is often a large factor in how the movie gets made. If Ridley wanted Deckard to be a replicant, and he's making the movie, doesn't that pretty much clinch it? Isn't bending the script to their view kinda what directors do?
--Ty
i agree with what u've said... however, i never really fixed my pt of view on whether he was or not tho.. but i thought it very probable that he was... i always wanted scott to have made deckard more human, thus emphasising the humanity issues etc... :)
however, just for the sake of discussion, deckard can still be a replicant regardless of him being no match for the others (physically) - he could have been an experimental model like rachel - only an extension... one implanted with memories that require interaction in the "real world" outside of the tyrell confines - and what would be better than a BR
If it wasn't completely resolved in the film, it doesn't matter. The uncertainty was made part of the film (a very interesting and important part), the conclusion was not.
;) ).
It's about as relevant as if George Lucas came out one day and said "Star Wars is actually about a dream Luke had, like Wizard of Oz, except I didn't bother to include the part about him waking up." For that matter, Doug Adams telling us the question to life, the universe, and everything, would add nothing to his stories (though it might add quite a bit to life outside of his stories if he got it right
Mr. Scott could just as easily say "Deckard was a highschool kid, playing a game in a virtual reality world. Nobody was a replicant, none of it was supposed to be real."
If it's not in the film, it doesn't matter.
then why use a title like "It's Official: Deckard Was A Replicant" ? You're playing with fire whenever more people have seen a movie than have read the corresponding book. Movies and books ARE fundamentally different because the book is an original piece of art, while the movie is simply a possible interpretation. (this, of course, only applies to movies based on books).
I believe your comment simply muddles the point.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
He said he tried to make it sound uninteresting, but it wasn't like he was mispronouncing words and working in Homer Simpson quotes (yes I know he wasn't around yet). Death to Nomadic.
From what I hear Harrison Ford himself hated it, and intentionally did a poor job in hopes that they'd decide not to use it...
Then... Blade Runner is bad movie. Period. It is disjointed to watch, some eye candy (wow), and that was it. The ending was cheap at best, I looked like they ran out of money and then stole from another moive.
/
They should lose the BASED on clause because then people who have read the book would not use the REAL SF version as a refence point. They use that BASED on as an advertising point to bring us who have read the book to the moive house to show us S..T! I assume you liked DUNE, too.
Same reason there was so many rewrites and Clancy keep refusing to allow his name to be assocatied to / with the 3 moives from his books. His name in the end was assocatied to moives because he agreed the moive was "good" in reguards to BASE CONCEPT and storyline of the book.
Blade Runner was a flight of fancy - And not a good one. I own copies of CLANCY moives, Star Wars, Star Trek and quite of few others - but I will not own BLADE RUNNER or DUNE, both bad moives.
Try reading:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladerunner-faq
Harrison Ford:
He is also willing to admit that he is not fond of "Blade Runner," Ridley
Scott's futuristic cult favorite. "I played a detective who did no
detecting," he says. "There was nothing for me to do but stand around and give
some vain attempt to give some focus to Ridley's sets. I think some - a lot -
of people enjoy it, and that's their perogative."
- The Boston Globe, July 14, 1991
Yeah, but it wasn't cool because Superman and Batman fought, it was cool because Frank Miller made a story that MEANT something out of it. There was a point to it.
I have yet to hear anyone tell me what the point of BR is supposed to be if Deckard is a replicant. Replicants are stupid, as well as short-lived? Bleh. It's as if we'd ended a *regular* Batman story with Superman walking up and punching him in the gut.
Although I don't doubt that's happened somewhere in the comics world, as well.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
yeah, it always pisses me off how in the first part of Fight Club there are those aweful flickers that look like a person appearing all over the place. Its really annoying. I mean, if they're gonna have such a huge movie converted to such a popular medium, they could at least look for obnoxious flickering people in the movie.
(note for crack-influenced moderators - that was sarcasm. Non crack-influenced moderators may fire at will)
No matter what Mr. Scott says.
It's no news anyway, he has said that loooong ago.
-jfedor
I like the voice-over as well. So there are two of us, at least.
The premise for the book was MUCH stronger, i think. It was 'WHAT IS HUMAN' as you say, but with an interesting twist - the replicants seemd more human than humanity itself at times. Supposedly, PKD got this idea when reading some testimony/journal of a Nazi concentration camp commandant who said that it was hard to sleep through all the screams, etc. in a very nonchalant, uncaring way.
I was disappointed with the DVD version too.
:-)
At least they should have included BOTH the
Original Version and the Director's Cut! It's
not like they need to encode two full length
versions of the video, only an alternate audio
track and some splicing of a few scenes that
are different. DVDs were meant to do exactly
that!
By the way, in the PC game Homeworld, one of
the levels is called the "Tanhauser Gate"...
The big problem with this discussion is that you're trying to define art. Art is not something easy to define, if not impossible.
Art can have a meaning but this is very far from defining art. What does "the gioconda" means?
In my opinion, and I repeat that MY OPINION, an artist skill should be measured in how well he can touch his audience. And once a piece of art is "out there" the meaning of it is what the people who sees it whants it to be.
Is Deckard a replicant? If you don't think so then he's not. Ridley Scotts thinks he is a replicant, that only means that Deckard is a replicant for Ridley Scott. There is no real version.
--
"take the red pill and you stay in wonderland and I'll show you how deep the rabitt hole goes"
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
But if a journal were to surface today in which van Gogh said that one of his paintings were head and shoulders above the others, do you think it would have no affect on how that painting is viewed?
It might affect it's fiscal value. It might not. I doubt that it would affect the consensus view of its artistic merit.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Just a comment re: that this movie isn't much like the book. It's true, and I have a hard time imagine any PKD book that would make a good movie straight off. The guy who wrote Bladerunner is nevertheless one of Hollywood's most interesting screenwriters (check out his credits). His work, although less scizophrenic than PKD's, is still thematically related as they continually question the nature of human identity (no big mystery he would eventually write a script for Terry Gilliam who has a similar interest). Anyway, the movie is different from the book for good reasons and Peoples is a very gifted screenwriter.
As for whether Deckard is a replicant or not, I think you better ask Peoples. His work is usually 'open-ended' in a similar fasion to PKD's, and the whole point is that we don't know. For that reason I thought that the director's cut was actually a disapointment (except for the exclusion of the talk-over, which was a big improvement) because it suddenly becomes obvious that Deckard is a replicant (i.e. the uncertainty is gone). This also could break the over-all moral and theme of the movie (and the book), as being about the difference between the human and non-human, the validity of artificial life and the despair of the opressed. If Deckard is a replicant, then what happens to that conflict?
No, I had never read the FAQ before now. Wish I had though; I would have written about Mercerism or keeping up with the Joneses through pets, and avoided the overlap.
Thanks for the reference, it's nice to know I'm not the only freak to sit through the movie frame by frame.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
The "happy" ending ended with a flyover of a winding road up in the mountains that happened to be taken from the opening shot of the original "The Shining".
--
Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
That's what I though that Decker was an experimental model like Rachel but going in a different direction, a replicant could make the perfect policeman. The implanted memories used to found a belief system that would support a very difficult job. Using more complex memories to shape the character much as the genetic designers shaped the double helix. "More human than human" this motto could have multiple paths Tyrell seemed to exploring what is really is to be human, IMHO the next evolutional step will be made in the lab and not randomly by nature. The way that Decker relates to the other cops shows he is as much an outsider as the replicants in many ways. "If your not cops your little people" remark shows this clearly. Decker has chosen to op out of being a cop. Like the replicants have chosen to be free in Rutger Hauer's closing speech shadows the tone of Decker's in the director's cut. Like any good work of art the vision of its creator is only one of many no less valid. Also like the replicants sometimes the child becomes more than the parent, the product more than the designer. Perhaps Decker was the Nexus7. Am I the only one worried that they might fail a Voigt-Kampff test?
Well, K. W. Jeter was a friend of Dick's. I agree most of his recent work is hackwork, but, I suppose if someone had to be contracted to write BW sequels, better him than, say, Piers Anthony (who novelized that Arnold thing. Blech.).
I just watched Fight Club on DVD last night. I was pleased at being able to advance frame by frame until Brad Pitt appeared clear as day. I'm still not used to that. Try seeing something like that on my crappy VCR and 15 inch tv. Much better on DVD on a 19 inch flat monitor.
Has he written any book, or done anything that might make his name come to mind?
The initial theme of the movie was What is it to be human. Unlike the books What is human. A subtle twist that added texture instead of simply filming the book.
Deckard broods and drinks and mostly wastes away. He doesn't want to hunt the replicants, he doesn't want to do much of anything.
The Replicants try to live life to the fullest (pay particular attention to Rutger's speech at the end).
I felt the original movie theme was a lot stronger.
And there were no computer graphics, just models.
Everyone knew Deckard wasn't human. The real question is whether Titanic's Jack Dawson was a replicant.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
http://goatee.net/2000/07#_10mo
00.07.10.mo | deckard is a replicant/h2>BBC news is reporting that in an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, Ridley Scott acknowledges that Deckard is a replicant. Anyone familiar with the film knows this to be the case, but Scott's refusal to address the question fueled the most salient ambiguity of the film -- it's the door way to other fun speculation and analysis. In Parting of the Mist: Analysis of Blade-Runner [Italian translation], I not only presented much of the evidence that Deckard is a replicant, but argued that the film portrays the interaction of Deckard (who does not realize he is a replicant) and the other replicants (who do). While their interactions are apparently violent, it is ultimately a form of marriage, transference, and an exhortation by the dying for Deckard to carry on.
I'm not sure what the documentary will offer over Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, but I look forward to seeing it.
> "Wouldn't it be cool if Superman fought Batman?"
Actually, one of the best parts of one of the best comic books *I've* ever read (The Dark Knight Returns) *is* the Superman vs. Batman fight, because Batman retained his humanity amongst the absolute worst of conditions and he defeats Superman because of that.
It was more than a fight... it was a kick in the teeth to the 80s and it's power-fixation. Batman in TDKR was a fascist of a stellar sort (much like Tyler Durden in "Fight Club"), but in the end he gave a damn, he took action, he made a difference while Superman supported a facade of a democracy.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
For those who don't bother to ever read the articles (like this one, which has pictures of Harrison Ford explaining he's Deckard), and don't remember the movie, a replicant is not precisely a cyborg.
"We Can Remember for you Wholesale" was really only used as the first 20 minutes or so of Total Recall. (I highly recommend that short story by the way).
Blade Runner had elements of a number of PKD books. Most of what I've read couldn't possibly be translated to a film.
Just out of curiosity, have you seen the director's cut? It sounds like it's quite different (although not like the book as you described it) and you may like it better since you liked the book. But, I think the point is that it's *based* on the book so it doesn't have to be a book on film. Books often don't translate well to film.
um, AFAIK, the ending in the original release (happy music over green hills, etc.) WAS taken from another movie - scenery outtakes of "The Shining". This was added to give the movie a happy ending.
The director's version is a bit different.
I think you are understimating the "eye candy". You seem to dismiss this as if it were nothing of consequence. Blade Runner is one of the few movies I have ever seen that makes me beleive the futuristic landscape is real. Sure, a lot of the look and feel was lifted from Metropolis, etc. but how can you make a movie that doesn't (intentionally or otherwise) lift ideas from other movies.
It's really a pointless effort to try to link a movie and a book together. They are two different ways of telling a story and it's unreasonable to expect a movie to faithfully recreate a book (unless for some reason the author decides to write the screenplay, direct the movie, film the movie, etc - then you will probably get a bad movie!)
Just watch the movie on its own. You may not like Blade Runner or Dune, but try to view them as if you have never read the books - you will enjoy them more. I'm not saying it's not worth discussing the faults of a book-movie transition; just don't let that nitpicking detract from your enjoyment of the movie.
-------
-------
"It was people! People soiled our green!"
Bladerunner had special meaning for me. I'm afraid that I'm a simulation the real me built of himself so he could get more work done.
<hidden from="TheDullBlade">
heh heh, TheDullBlade is a replicant
-ButterKnife
</hidden>
one question i've always had about the movie... Where'd the dude get the dove from?
As far as I can tell, he brings it with him when he runs up to the roof. Rather cliche, eh?
I happen to have come across some etext version of the screenplay and script. The former gives:
The script condenses/modifies that into:
Thank you for asking.
-Nexus7
I mean come on, Scott could have said that Deckard was a fish with limbs grafted on. That would be just as official.
Poor.
---
This has already been covered in the Blade Runner FAQ, which basically already quoted Ridley Scott as saying Deckard was a replicant.
I personally think most of the so-called "evidence" that Deckard was a replicant consists of holes in the plot, of which there are very many in the film.
Who cares what Ridley Scott thinks? "Blade Runner" is just the movie interpretation of Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Do Androids, in fact, achieves its high level of poignancy by merely SUGGESTING that, under the right circumstances, humanity itself is subjective. Dick didn't need to say whether Deckard was an android... I believe the story is much more interesting by leaving it as a mere possibility. God forbid we should actually ponder something anymore, instead of waiting for the de-facto answers.
I believe Phil K. Dick would not be happy, were he alive today, to learn that other people were deciding to simply change his characters like this.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Providing a resolution (and I don't think it is Scott's place to provide one for Dick's story) leaves the us, the audience, with nothing to figure out, and little to learn about ourselves.
While Ridley Scott has made one great movie (Alien) and a couple of good movies (Bladerunner, The Duellists, some would say Thelma and Louise), he's also made a steaming pile of crap: GI Jane, 1492,Legend,Gladiator. I'll take Paul Verhoeven's lousy movies over Scott's lousy movies any day. And yes, that includes Showgirls.
That was a good book. excellently done, on par with 1984 and Fareinheit(sp?) 451. If you haven't read it, excellent. And now this. Whoa.
For those of you who aren't quite sure of the implications, throughout the whole of the book "Do Androids Sleep of Electronic Sheep", he (the author) deftly tips you this way and that in regards to whether the protagonist is the same as what he is hired to gun down. Also, seeing as he was trying to kill them, that adds a whole different angle to that. Which is ironic, because the whole book deals with the moral issue of "what makes a human?" I think I'll be re-reading it now.
Hmm...wonder if they knew this when they made the movie??
Anyone know about the sequel that came out a few years ago?
JoeLinux
From what I read in the Bladerunner faq Harrison Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
It sounds to me like all of the holywood types (basically everyone involved in the film but Ridley Scott) didn't want Deckard to be a replicant so that the movie woule be more palatable to Hollywood audiences (and profitable). Scott wanted him to be a replicant cause that is what makes it a truly good story. It's the old battle of art vs. commerce. unfortunately, in the original version, commerce won out, but art finally got its say in the director's cut!
Bear in mind that by going to movies and buying/renting DVDs you are financing creation of CSS2 (link :) or CSS3 or G-d knows what.
I don't give a fsck what Scott says, its the film of the book. The only person who can rightfully come out and make a statement like that is Philip K Dick, and as he is sadly dead, that doesn't seem likely. Ridley Scott should say something more useful, like publicly raise the issue that the DVD version is a disgrace, or bringing to the public attention that the so-called Directors Cut of his film is not his choice of cut at all, but that of the film editor...and sucks. No, I haven't read the linked article BTW.
IMHO, making Deckard a (definite) replicant wrecks PKD's work. The book is about the shifting definition of humanity, and the moral and ethical considerations thereof. If Deckard is a replicant, that kinda goes down the toilet and you just have a typical (and not very clever) plot twist.
This changes nothing about the blade runner game, where Deckard's replicant/human status is determined by ones own actions I find that strangely comforting *sniff*
Of course he was a replicant. He dreamt of unicorns, and the cop made him little unicorns. What other conclusions where there to draw? What other purpose could possibly be served by those scenes?
In my opinion, making Deckard the new breed of replicant was beautiful. It added so much to the plot, and made you reconsider his actions and the plight of the short-life replicants. Quite brilliant.
It's disappointing to me that the current standard of Hollywood movies has resulted in fans who need absolutely everything spelled out to them.
i've seen all the version of blade runner, i've read do androids dream of electric sheep, and i'm sorry, but he is NOT an android!! as i recall, one of the only reasons deckard suspected he was an android was because he felt sorry for them when he killed them. and the only ones who felt sorry for androids were androids. but wouldn't that have been the whole point of empathy, and how he became at one with mercer? the point of empathisizing with someone is seeing where they are coming from. and feeling bad for a bunch of machines hunted like dogs for being nothing more than misunderstood certainly warrants a little empathy. and besides, he tested himself on the Voigt-Kampff test, and passed. so nyah on all of you who think he is. if you think he was an android, you have a brain filled with kipple!!
"How it infuriates a bigot, when he is forced to drag out his dark convictions"-- Logan Pearsall Smith
That's stupid. Scott decided what went into the film and how Deckard was portrayed; he decided that Deckard was a replicant and he directed the film accordingly. If the writers didn't want Deckard to be a replicant, then the movie isn't very faithful to the writing. But in the movie, Deckard was a replicant.
Who gives Scott the right to tell us what was happening in the film? The book Future Noir reveals that there was disagreement among the actors and writers about whether Deckard was a replicant. It has been suggested that Scott came up with the idea by misreading the screenplay, and that others were not aware of it. A film is a collaboration of many people's ideas. To give Scott the right to tell us what the film means would be accepting the most extreme extension of the auteur theory of filmmaking: the notion that the director of a film is the sole creative force behind it, and has a stranglehold on its meaning. And that flies in the face of how films are made and enjoyed.
As for rebellion...well, I don't think I am who you think I am, 'kay?
Not on Ridley Scotts say so anyway. He doesn't get to make the decision. The film is based on a novel by Phillip K Dick. Therefore only Phillip K Dick can say.
Go read the book.
Gimme Gimme Gimme - Karma!
BTW: Deckard isn't NECESSARILY a Replicant. The whole "missing replicant" line is actually turns out to be a continuity gaffe on Ridley's part (OOPS! Forgot to overdub that one!) and the bit about the Unicorn only occurs in the "Director's Cut", which isn't the movie most people have seen when they're thinking "Blade Runner".
I think Ridley's attraction to the idea rather defeats the whole movie. What's the point, if Deckard IS a Rep? What in fact, IS, the story? There's no character growth then, no realization that "retiring" a replicant is nothing more than killing... there's no VALUE to the story if you choose to believe that. I think Ripley just has a childish fixation on the idea, in the same way that a 9-year-old kid thinks, "Wouldn't it be cool if Superman fought Batman?"
Bleh. Deckard's always gonna be a human to me.
I'll take you all on. :)
Buy the book, anyway.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
i've seent the movie half a dozen times and i've never seen any proof that deckard was a replicant... i don't c how a dream about unicorns makes him a replicant. could someone explain that to me? can't it just be a surreal dream? i've never read the book, so maybe the definitive proof is in it? Please reply. I'm curious
You're kidding about a sequel, right? I hope so. Rich
The other thing that surprised me a little is the mention of the Replicant Numbering puzzle, which I thought had likewise been conclusively solved via interview - the last replicant, who was supposed to be the gentle, mother figure for the others, was scheduled to die shortly after earth fall, with her "family" around her. However, this scene was apparently removed due to budgeting constraints, and while the dialogue for Deckards interview with the police was rerecorded, attempts to reloop it over the scene resulted in noticable lip-flapping.
Mind, all these things got bounced around and changed in the umpteen revisions that lead to the final Bladerunner scripts, ( I still think they should have kept the Turtle Ending ), so perhaps my interpretation is a little suspect.
Re-engage lurk mode,
Curious.
If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and rent one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.
Got to agree with this; I saw the original many, many years ago, and remember not caring for it too much. Saw the director's cut a little while ago, and was blown away. That last scene with Rutger Hauer was just incredible, and Harrison Ford's voice over will definitely not be missed.
Besides, about 80% of what he pointed out I never thought of. If you have a criticism, perhaps you could be a little more specific.
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
The movie lost the real meaning of book. (In the book HE IS NOT A REPLICANT.)
There was Two San Franciscos - Human and Android.
The radiation was mutating Humans to be "less human".
Andriods were improving to be more human.
Deckard (Human Police) was arrested for murder, by the Android Police.
There were two police stations -- were was this in the moive!
The question in the book -- WHAT IS HUMAN?
The question in the moive -- how to use computer graphics... Then give me the LAST STAR FIGHTER.
Read the real book, and then read UBIK and see reality for what it is not. Another is EYE IN THE SKY or MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE - not as good a UBIK but still.
And to keep your mind swimming -- read Philip Jose Farmer -- for that just-make-my-mind-spin-please feeling
It really didn't seem all that ambiguous once they put the unicorn dream sequence in there, since the only reason for it and the unicorn origami at the end was to establish Deckard as being a replicant himself. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be any point for those two things to happen in the film.
The number of skin-jobs, though, really is a continuity error, not a hint as the article implies. There was originally another replicant named "Mary" who they eventually decided to cut out of the film before any of her scenes were shot, but the screenwriter didn't catch the change. In the workprint version, it was actually recorded correctly as "two got fried" (instead of just one), but they botched it again on the release print. Of course, they might've noticed the error later and left it in to stir the debate.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Question: does anyone know where I can get my hands on a copy of the video?
-- Your Servant,
Your Servant, B. Baggins